People v. Turner

California Supreme Court Aug 27, 1884 No. No. 10,968Published

Before: Morrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that under the 1874 amendment to Penal Code section 245, a jury verdict finding a defendant guilty of assault with a deadly weapon is sufficient to support a felony conviction without an express finding of intent to produce great bodily injury. Additionally, the court affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings and its refusal to provide a specific instruction on circumstantial evidence where the case did not rely on such evidence.

Issues

Whether a verdict of assault with a deadly weapon is sufficient to support a felony conviction under Penal Code section 245 without a finding of intent to produce great bodily injury.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing impeachment testimony where the foundation was allegedly insufficient.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing a jury instruction regarding circumstantial evidence when the case did not depend on such evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We think that the amendment has worked a material change in the section, and that, as it now stands, it is unnecessary to charge in the indictment, or for the jury to find, that the assault was made with a deadly weapon, with intent to produce”

“It is sufficient to follow the language of the statute in charging the offense, and by parity of reasoning, it is sufficient for the jury to find in the language of the charge.”

“There is no doubt that in a proper case, dependent upon circumstantial evidence, such an instruction as that asked by the defendant should be given by the court, but the present case did not depend in any degree on circumstantial evidence.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Assault with Intent to Commit Murder—Sufficiency of Indictment and Yebdict. —Since the amendment of 1874 to section 245 of the Penal Code, where a party is indicted for an assault with intent to commit murder, and a verdict is rendered against him for an assault with a deadly weapon, the verdict is sufficient to support a judgment of imprisonment for two years in the State prison, without stating that the assault was made with intent to commit great bodily injury.

Id.—Impeachment of Witness__A witness was asked, “did you not state, in the month of September, in the presence of William Knowles and James Robinson, on the way between town here and the race track, that yon would go into court and swear' anything at .all that would injure the Thomases,” to which he answered, no. Held, that the question was sufficiently definite to lay the foundation for an impeachment of the witness.

Id.—Instructions — Circumstantial Evidenoe.—The court refused the following instruction to the jury asked for by the defendant: “You are instructed that before you can find the defendant guilty, you must he satisfied to a moral certainty, that the circumstances of the case are not only consistent with the guilt of the defendant, but are entirely inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis that can he adduced from the evidence.” A full and correct charge had already been given on the subject of reasonable doubt. Held, that as the case did not depend in any degree on. circumstantial evidence, it was not error to refuse the instruction.

Morrison, C. J. The defendant was indicted for the crime of assault with intent to commit murder upon one William B. Thomas, and was found guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon. The verdict of the jury is in the following language: —

“We, the jury in the case of the People of the State of California against Thomas Alexander Turner, find the defendant guilty of an assault upon the person of William B. Thomas, with a deadly weapon.”

Upon the foregoing verdict the court entered judgment condemning the defendant to two years’ imprisonment in the State prison.

The first ground of reversal urged on this appeal is that the judgment is erroneous because the verdict found the defendant guilty of nothing but an assault. It is claimed that there was no finding that the assault was committed with intent to produce great bodily injury, and that therefore the verdict did not find the ultimate and essential facts necessary to support the judgment for a felony under section 245 of the Penal Code; that the intent is not found.

The case of People v. Vanard, 6 Cal. 562, is relied upon by the defense, but it is claimed on behalf of the prosecution that the law has been changed since that case was decided, and that section 245 of the Penal Code, as it now stands, makes it a felony for one person to assault another with a deadly weapon, and furthermore that it is sufficient to charge an offense in the language of the statute, and that an offense sufficiently charged is sufficiently found in the language of the charge. These are elementary principles of law, and need no citation of authorities in support of them.

[542]Section 245 of the Penal Code as it was amended in 1874 is as follows:—

“Every person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument, or by any means or force likely to produce great bodily injury, is punishable by imprisonment in the State prison, or in a county jail, not exceeding two years, or by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by both.”

It is conceded by the prosecution that under the statute as it stood before the amendment, it was necessary to charge (and find) that the assault was made with a deadly weapon, with intent to produce great bodily injury; and it is claimed by the defense that the law has undergone no change in this regard by the amendment of 1874.

People v. Turner

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief